An important pull request: accessing shared affix for immutable data

[ZombineDev via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 13 February 2016 at 02:35:43 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 02/12/2016 09:21 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> Const could also mean mutable. This can hence reference the 
>> same data as
>> both shared and unshared, which violates the type system.
>
> If const comes from mutable, then shared is superfluous leading 
> to extra synchronization. That's suboptimal, but how does it 
> violate the type system? -- Andrei

It violates the expectations that if an object is not shared, it 
could not possibly be modified from another thread.